Necturus lewisi Study: Distribution & Ecology 15 



identified by Hecht (1958) as N. lewisi, actually was the spotted form of 

 N. punctatus. He considered a female Necturus (DU A3458), collected 

 in the Cape Fear River in Pender County, to be an introduced N. macu- 

 losus. This decision was based on the animal's weight and the number of 

 eggs it contained, both of which were well outside the known ranges for 

 size and fecundity in N. lewisi. Martof et al. (1980) said N. lewisi prefer 

 to stay in leaf beds in quiet water during the winter. All authors who tried 

 to collect N. lewisi remarked on the difficulty of capturing specimens. 

 Collections referred to in the above listed works, and other miscellane- 

 ous collections made prior to this study, brought the number of known 

 sites for N. lewisi to about 25 or 30. 



Published information on the feeding habits of N. lewisi has been 

 limited to a brief statement of the results of this study by Nickerson and 

 Ashton (1983). They said "small aquatic invertebrates, some terrestrial 

 invertebrates, and some fish and salamanders are included in the diet." 

 (Nickerson and Ashton also presented an account of the Least Brook 

 Lamprey, Lampetra aepyptera, being eaten by a captive N. lewisi.) 



General range maps and descriptions for N. lewisi were provided in 

 Conant (1975), Behler and King (1979), and Martof et al. (1980). 



The apparent scarcity and relatively small range of N. lewisi, com- 

 bined with the lack of natual history information, provided justification 

 for an extensive survey of the Neuse and Tar River drainages to deter- 

 mine the actual distribution, habitat requirements, and habits of the 

 species. 



MATERIALS AND METHODS 



A pilot project to test equipment and techniques was conducted 

 between November 1977 and July 1978 at a site where N. lewisi was 

 known to be common. The principal survey period for the main study 

 was from December 1978 through May 1979 for the Neuse River drain- 

 age, and January 1980 through April 1980 for the Tar River drainage. 

 Three full-time technicians were employed during each of the survey 

 periods. The basin under study was divided into three comparatively 

 equal parts, and a technician assigned responsibility for sampling each. 

 Since the duration of the surveys was relatively brief, and the area to be 

 covered was quite extensive, we had to limit the numbers and locations 

 of sites as well as the amount of time allocated to sampling each site. 

 Most survey sites were located near state maintained roads that afforded 

 easy access to the water. However, several remote sites along the lower 

 Tar River required using a boat to reach trapping sites. 



Commercially available wire minnow traps and Ward's D-frame 

 dipnets were the principal collecting tools. Seining was productive under 

 certain conditions, but was done only when two people and appropriate 

 habitat were available. Set hooks were tried but were discontinued 



